TD agrees the mistake but evades directly reply or remedy in her reply to the Indian team manager Anurita Saini.

Tournament Director Julia Ellis replies to Indian protest lodged yesterday, but evades answer for the points raised by the Indian team management.

In the fag end of the day, the tournament director of the ongoing world cup Julia |ellis has replied to the Indian protest. In her 2/page reply Ellis accepts that ‘there is no question that the decision taken by the umpires just prior to the end of the first of match No. 17 India England was improperly managed and communicated to the team involved. The team captains should have been recalled to the pitch and advised of the change of the decision not to award a goal. Unfortunately, mistakes happen and we are attempting to minimize these mistakes so that the teams are not adversely affected.’

It is apparent from the above that the umpire has taken a decision to change her decision even before the halftime, which itself is wrong. There was about a thousand crowd watching the match, including two dozen journalists but none of them has witnessed Holland umpire Caroline reversing her decision. Not at all.

If that was the case the match should have been stopped when umpires’ discussed, the decision conveyed on the turf by definitive sign, and then the remaining seconds should have been played out.

Nothing of above has happened. After the goal was awarded the teams dispersed to dressing room. This is all what we all witnessed. The official explanation seems a good brain work, an after thought to protect erring kin and kith.

The protest letter in fact wanted to know the reason for cancellation of the goal. The reply is silent about it.

The Indian management wanted as a special case a select panel should go into the matter and take review of the situation.

The reply is again silent about it.

The reply however clears states that the only aspects of a match which cannot lead to a protest are ‘from decision of an umpire or video umpire during a match’.

This aspect I have already dealt with, and I am still surprised what else is there to protest if the FIH wants to protect their incompetent umpires from even the formality of protesting.

In the last world cup, there used to be a jury of appeal, a mechanism that was in vogue ever since hockey was played under the agesis of FIH. Why was it removed is a matter of concern for those who want level playing field for sports to prosper.

However, the letter complements Indian team on the performance. ‘They are obviously very skilled and well coached’.

This is what the people here and those watched on the screen opine. If she really things, she should have taken right steps but not lip service.

Thank god the Indian management did not waste 500 euros, the protest fee.

Else, with our money these bogus people would have enjoyed.